Just a note about Roman organization for anybody wanting to take up the Empires.

These are not necessarily two separate Empires, though they kind of are? It is difficult to express. Emperor Augustus claimed legitimacy through his adoption by Caesar (Caesar wasn't an Emperor btw, or at least not to traditional reckoning which places Augustus as the first Emperor). Augustus than took the name "Augustus" (He had been Octavian before) and reorganized the government so that he had clear and indisputable control, since all of the provinces with military postings were under his control. He didn't come out and say "I am Emperor now", but rather started calling himself first citizen. Following a tradition unwittingly started by Caesar, Augustus would give the title of "Caesar" to his chosen heir. Augustus eventually gives the title of Caesar to his son-in-law Tiberius, who becomes Augustus when Augustus dies and gives the title of Caesar to his nephew Caligula, who passes it to his uncle Claudius, who passes it to his son-in-law Nero. Even after coups and civil wars, this tradition continues.

And this started a trend. The Emperor adopts the name "Augustus" and gives the name "Caesar" to his heir. When (or if) that heir comes to power, they adopt the title of Augustus and give the name "Caesar" to the new heir. Since the Imperial title wasn't hereditary, the name Caesar could be given to whoever the Emperor chose. Sometimes this was a son , sometimes it was a relative, and sometimes it was a colleague.

By the fourth century, Rome was sort of a has-been city. The capital was initially moved to Milan, and eventually Constantinople, since the east was where most of the action and the money was. Despite this move, the Empire split into two pieces several times where there would be two Augustus's and two Caesars, in which case the Western Augustus would settle in Milan. Eventually, they moved to Ravenna, which is where the Western Capital was located when the Western Empire fell.

In this scenario, I figured I'd orient it where there is just one Empire being ruled by the Emperor and his heir. The other three sections, the "Dioceses" represent the larger political regions of the Empire and would be subject to the Emperor. The Emperor, or "Augustus", rules from Constantinople. Caesar, the heir, rules from Italy.

Now, if it were me as Caesar the west, I would move the capital to Venice. The Western Empire fell before Venice was anything more than a few refugees in a marsh, but the location would be excellent in terms of defense. It is impossible to attack without a navy, it is located near the north where threats to Italy would be coming from, and it can be supplied from the sea.

TL;DR: Augustus is supreme, Caesar is his heir. The Western part of the Empire is second to the East. The West should probably move its capital to Venice.

Also, I am planning on taking up the "Diocese Oriens" if anybody is wondering.

@AYoungWarthog I would be willing to help with the OOC. Maybe give some overviews of some basic details about the historical factions.

And in the event it's not clear: I got the dibs on the Muslims.

I call dibs on Romano-Britons.

I should probably not take up another RP, especially an Advanced RP, but I would love to be Byzies.

There is always something defeated feeling about the Byzantines, like they are the Rome that lost it all but stubbornly refused to jump off the boat. They switch to Greek, and after Justinian dies they become very regional in their politics so that it is clear the rest of Europe no longer belongs in their sphere.

Byzies were more sophisticated than Classical Rome in many respects, and losing most of their territory to the Islamic Conquests actually helped in that, to the point where the Byzies had 1700s Political institutions in the 1000s.

Also, this might help outline my potential policies.

So does this.

<Snipped quote by Vilageidiotx>

Byzies were more sophisticated than Classical Rome in many respects, and losing most of their territory to the Islamic Conquests actually helped in that, to the point where the Byzies had 1700s Political institutions in the 1000s.

Also, this might help outline my potential policies.

So does this.

Yeh, but that period in their history is five hundred years away at the time the RP takes place. At this point, the Romans are still a latin-speaking direct continuation of the ancient civilization. We are sort of in the transitory period between the Rome of Augustus and the Byzantium of the High Middle Ages.

<Snipped quote by Letter Bee>

Yeh, but that period in their history is five hundred years away at the time the RP takes place. At this point, the Romans are still a latin-speaking direct continuation of the ancient civilization. We are sort of in the transitory period between the Rome of Augustus and the Byzantium of the High Middle Ages.

True, point taken.

Anyway, doing research on Emperor Heraclius.

We're alt historying this shit, so it'll probably be a different guy.

Still, read up on Heraclius. The info will definitely be relevant in some way, and its fun to read besides.

Ah, cool, guess I'll not implement Monothelitism, then.

Ah, cool, guess I'll not implement Monothelitism, then.

By all means, we can't really be late antiquity Romans of any kind if we aren't bickering about the nature of Christ.

<Snipped quote by Letter Bee>

By all means, we can't really be late antiquity Romans of any kind if we aren't bickering about the nature of Christ.

Heh, point. Squee, this will be fun!

Sorry to double-post, but I need to rest for a while, and regularly relax in order to stave off my temper issues.

@Vilageidiotx re: Caesar - Not totally correct. Caesar was C. Iulius's cognomen. Therefore, when C. Iulius adopted Augustus (who was C. Octavius), Augustus's name changed to C. Iulius Caesar Octavianus. Tiberius, the second emperor of Rome, himself was adopted by Augustus. It was really only after the Julio-Claudians that the "Caesar" and "Augustus" titles were used to legitamize the emperor's rule instead of just being tied to the family (i.e. acquiring the title via adoption).

Anyways, I going withdraw my interest in this RP if you all are planning on doing late antiquity. The original idea was focused on the early empire (which could have either been the late republic or the Julio-Claudian reign). It is probably a good thing because I might not have had the time to devote the proper amount of energy on it anyways, despite the fact that I'm interested in an ancient Roman (or Greek, which would have been my preference) rp.

Good luck to you all.

I also am confused where the "late antiquity" came from. I said we can add Muslims and all, but the late antiquity is too far from classic Roma. I enjoy the politics, workings, and cultural tones of classical early Empire. Tiberius and Octavian era, essentially. Though we can still keep the map, since we are doing a bit of an alternate universe. I'd say a good time period would be between 15 BC and AD 5.

In that case, sigh...

The map would make no sense for that era, since the majority of those tribes wouldn't exist yet, and the Parthians would still be in power.

But if you guys want to do early Empire, that is cool too, though in that case i'll probably have to withdraw. I can only RP so much, so i'm saving my energy for just a few ideas.

I too would need to withdraw if the whole premise of my interest is being smudged away.

I'm unsubscribing, sorry for being rude.

Withdrawing as well, was more interested in the later period